Your Response

I have studied logic, philosophy, and religion for a long time. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God. What can be said, however, is that God is not necessary as a condition for our existence. The space provided here is not sufficient to go into great detail, but let's take a cursory glance at the problem....<br />If we attempt to account for our existence, we must look to the origins of all things. There are two possible scenarios. In one scenario, first there was simply nothing. Then, at some point, somehow, the first elements of our universe came to be (whether these elements were God, or the energy preceding the big bang, etc...doesn't matter.) In the other scenario, there was always something...at least the foundations for later came to be (again...it doesn't matter what this something was.) In either scenario, you have a set of circumstances unfolding without having been caused by anthing else. Let's take the first scenario...where something comes from nothing. Let's say that something is God. If first there is nothing, and then God appears from this nothingness, what we have for sure is the possibility of random elements entering into the universe. God, in this case, just came into existence spontaneously, because there was nothing before him to create him. If we replace God with the big bang, or any other theory for that matter, the fact remains that randomness is part of the system. In the second scenario, where there were always some foundational aspects of reality, we also see the emergence of the random. That which has always existed could not have been caused or brought about into being, because there was nothing to precede it. <br />Hopefully, by now, you've picked up on what I'm aiming at...that no matter what actually happened in the time before time, we see that the universe acts, or did act, at least a little bit randomly. Not everything adheres to some strict causal structure. Therefore, nothing can every actually account for our being. Our existence should be impossible, and yet we are here. What this shows us is that, since no matter what, there had to be a degree of chaos in our origins, every possible explanation for how we got here is equally as likely as any other. God creating the universe is one possibility amid the myriad. Anyone who pretends to know for sure is full of it. All we can do is guess.

Your Response

Your Response

We can prove anything we want. We can prove there is a God, we can prove there isn't. What we can't do, we can't prove ourselves to be any better than we were before we've learned to prove things so well.

Your Response

No, they can't. But we can at least show them the intelligence behind our world's design. It is very hard to be atheist, because you have believe that everything in this world happened for no reason, or that it happened by chance. It is a lot more logical to believe that there is a god, then that there isn't, just ba<x>sed off observation.

Your Response

No. But it's impossible to prove that there is one.<br />For instance if someone came up to you and said "I can fly!" Your reaction would probably be for them to show you to prove this extrodinary claim. If their response was "Prove I can't!" How likely would you be to believe them?

Your Response

Most people seem to look at this subject from only 2 points of view. Atheism and religion. Religious people tend to brand all non religious people as atheist. I agree with Richard Dawkins on this matter. I believe in no one's god but you believe in your god. So strictly speaking I simply believe in 1 god less than you do. From the viewpoint of other religions you are also an atheist because you do not believe in their god. <br />Some people have shown evidence of how humans came to be on Earth, evidence that has nothing to do with religion or atheism.<br />If you have the guts to do so I challenge you to read a book called Slave Species Of god, by Michael Tellinger. He spells god with a small g for good reason. This book will open your eyes and take you on a journey of discovery like the Bible and most other mainstream religious books never could. Although if you have been indoctrinated enough then you will avoid reading this book at all costs for fear of being influenced by Satan. This book will show you that god and satan are not and never were gods. In fact Michael Tellinger shows us, using Sumerian stone tablets which were written thousands of years BC by people who had direct contact with these gods that god and satan are/were half brothers. Read this book and you will come to understand why there are so many different religions and gods and why us humans are prepared to kill each other over this issue which has been taught to us over the years as honest truth by our parents etc. It would seem that us humans have been conned and used for thousands of years Read this book and it will open your eyes to possibilities that you never knew even existed.<br />Did you know that at least 65 books were excluded from the Bible. They are called The Apocrypha. Why were they excluded ? Well some of them contain the same message as written in those Sumerian stone tablets which have recently been properly translated. The church couldn't have us knowing that our gods are not really gods now could they ?

Your Response

No. The most that atheists and agnostics can prove are the existence of self-contradicting statements and non sequiturs that are present in the tenets and dogmas of certain religions. The atheist mistakenly perceives the self-contradicting statements and non sequiturs as proof that there is no god. The agnostic correctly perceives them as the human-created self-contradicting statements and non sequiturs that they are, and that they neither prove nor disprove god's existence. For an atheist to state that human-created statements about god which are impossible due to self-contradictions serve as proof that god does not exist is a non sequitor in itself, because the atheist's conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. <br /><br />If you recall from the fable of the three blind men examining and trying to identify an elephant, all three came to inaccurate conclusions about what they were examining and misidentified the creature that they were examining. Their incomplete perceptions and their resulting mistaken identifications of the animal that they were examining did not alter the fact that the elephant existed as an elephant. Likewise, an incomplete perception or mistaken identification of god would not negate the existence of god. Agnostics correctly refrain from the logic-flaw of concluding that an impossible definition of something does not mean that it does not exist in another state of definition.

Your Response

"Hey, God, prove to me that you exist." ... ... ... ... Nothing. I win!<br /><br />*Serious answer: There is absolutely no reason to believe God exists, in the first place. A long time ago, some people randomly decided that he does, and since then it's been passed down from one generation to the next, and now people think he's an axiom of reality or something.